ORDER Arvind Kumar, J.—Plaintiffs before the trail court are the writ petitioners and they are seeking for a direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by XVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S. Nos. 2758/2012, 2759/2012, 2760/2012, 2762/2012 and 4051/2012 only to the extent of allowing the defendant to file written statement and objections to I.A.I. and they are also seeking for a mandamus to direct the said court to consider I.A.I. filed by writ petitioners/plaintiffs in all these suits and to pass ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade marks "Adigas/Vasudev Adigas". Having heard Sri. Harikrishna Holla, learned counsel appearing for petitioner it is noticed that plaintiffs have filed these suits seeking for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain defendants, their servants, against anyone claiming through him from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs well established copyrighted trade mark and trading style of plaintiff namely "Adigas/Vasudev Adigas" in respect of running hotels, restaurant, lodging and passing off as and for their goods and services by using trade marks "Vasudev Adigas" and like. Along with the suit, plaintiffs also filed I.A.I. seeking for an ex-parte ad interim order of temporary injunction. Trial Court on examination of plea put forward by plaintiffs was of the view that it was not a fit case to issue temporary injunction by dispensing with notice and as such order for issue of emergent suit summons and notice on I.A.I. Thereafter defendant has appeared and filed applications in these suits under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Said application was resisted by plaintiffs in all these suits and after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties trial court by impugned order dismissed the application and at the same time granted time to the defendant to file written statement and objections to I.A. 2. The grievance of Sri. Said application was resisted by plaintiffs in all these suits and after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties trial court by impugned order dismissed the application and at the same time granted time to the defendant to file written statement and objections to I.A. 2. The grievance of Sri. Harikrishna Holla, learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs in these writ petitions is trial court without considering the prayer of the plaintiffs/petitioners which was for grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction has proceeded to grant time to defendant to file objections to I.A. without examining as to whether ad interim order is to be granted or not while granting time to the defendant and as such he contends this court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the said order extending time to defendant for filing objections to I.A. and also seeks for further direction to trial court to issue ad interim injunction as prayed for. As already observed herein above trial court at the time of considering the prayer for grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction has refused to exercise its discretion for the reasons assigned in the order dated 20.04.2012. Undisputedly application filed by plaintiff for grant of ad interim temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit is not yet disposed of by trial court. It would e needless to state that trial court would take into consideration the dicta laid down by this court in the case of Madhu Product, Bangalore v. Sundaram Files and others reported in AIR 2012 Kar 68 and take steps to expeditiously dispose of the applications filed by plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction expeditiously. With this observation these writ petitions stands disposed of without issuing notice to respondent.